Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page
"You studied with the Chapel since '93 and you're still stupid, unbelievable." (Serpent Seed)
This attitude is typical of the mentality Arnold Murray inspired in his followers. If you agree with Murray, that means you are "sharp" and one of God's Elect. If you disagree with him, you might be, "just a little bit stupid."
Question/Comment:
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Friday, December 26, 2014 3:39 AMYou mean to tell me that you studied with the chapel since 93 and your still stupid, unbelievable.
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 12:47 PMSubject: Re:No, I stopped studying with the Chapel years ago, because continued independent study in the bible led me to believe that Murray was a false teacher. And your attitude is typical of the students of Arnold Murray: you guys attribute differences of opinion to the stupidity of those who disagree with you. That comes straight from the desk of your master. I guess that means that no mentally handicapped will make it into Arnold Murray's heaven, because only the best and brightest are able to comprehend the simple truths written in the bible which, according to Murray, are so simple a child could understand. There is not a child on the earth who would read Genesis and come up with the imaginative and corrupt teaching that Murray does. You want to talk about unbelievable?4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,
4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:If you can't understand what those verses are simply saying, that is what I call blind. The bible is saying that Cain was the result of the union of Adam and Eve. This is also the place where you find Adam in Cain's genealogy. How did that one slip by?3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.There is no sex in that verse, none. No innuendo, no euphemism. Nothing. And it is not your intellect which is keeping you from seeing the truth.Sincerely,Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 4:47 PMSubject: RE:
First of all my comment to you is from me, not the chapel, number two if you don't see a truth it doesn't make anyone else a false teacher. The bible states in different places that Satan, Or devil , or serpent, or whatever you want to call him , is Cain father. You call someone else a false teacher because you're not receiving the truth, or mabey your eyes ate close to the truth, I don't know. And those things you said about the mentally handicapped really shows how soddish you really are.
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 6:11 PMSubject: Thy seed and her seedThy seed and her seed
12/27/2014
4:34 PM
36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away , and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying , Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
38 The field is the world ; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 But I fear , lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
---------------------------------------
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go , and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between* thy seed and her seed*; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 1:55 AMSubject: RE:Sorry if I offend you ,when you make negative comments they will come back at you, although your comments might not seen negative to you.
God bless
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 2:50 PMSubject: Re:
Hi, Thanks for writing back.First of all my comment to you is from me, not the chapel,I didn't think you were the legal representative represented Soldier's of the Cross Incorporated (the Chapel's Corporate Arm). But spiritually, you are from the Shepherd's Chapel. I remember when I used to study with Pastor Murray, he told me that watching him on TV made me a part of his church. So if you watch him on TV, listen to CD's, cassettes, or on shortwave radio around the world, according to Murray, you are part of the Shepherd's Chapel.Since the comments you make are informed by Chapel teachings, you will represent the Shepherd's Chapel to whatever degree people choose to judge the Chapel by you, whether that is just or not. It is the same with Christ. None of us are Christ's designated spokesmen, but people will judge Christ by our words, whether we like it or not.number two if you don't see a truth it doesn't make anyone else a false teacher.That's basically true, but irrelevant. I see what he is talking about, and I think he is wrong. I see what he is doing, and I think he is perverting the meaning of the scriptures. In that case, I have a responsibility. If anyone does not like what I do. they can speak up in Murray's defense. I give you the respect I feel you are due by talking with you.The bible states in different places that Satan, Or devil , or serpent, or whatever you want to call him , is Cain father.No, actually, the bible NEVER says that. Not even once. The bible never says the Devil was Cain's father. Not ever. The bible says this:1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous."Of." That is not a specific reference to carnal parentage. "Ye are of the world" "Of" can indicate all kinds of relationships, but it does not specifically indicate fatherhood the way Genesis 4:1 DEFINTIELY does. Adam knew Eve and she conceived. That is saying that Adam was Cain's father, specifically.Cain was "of the devil" but he murdered his brother because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous, not because Satan was his literal father.1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.By the same logic, that verse is saying that you and I are also the literal children of the devil, (or at least were) because we have sinned.Cain was "of the devil" because of sin. That is what 1 John 3 teaches us. The bible never says Satan was the father of Cain, though, spiritually, he indeed was Cain's father.Thy seed and her seedHer seed? Why is it not HIS SEED as in ADAM? Isn't Murray's whole point that Cain was not ADAM's son? Cain is also a seed of the woman. Both Cain and Abel were seed of the woman, but the seed of sin (Satan's seed) corrupted the one and not the other. The seed of the serpent is spiritual not carnal.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between* thy seed and her seed*; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heelYou should listen to my study on Revelation 12 http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/66_Revelation/66_revelation.htmlThe seed of the woman is Christ, "the son of man" He is the ultimate man. Cain is not the seed of the serpent and is never identified as such. The seed of the serpent is sin and the seed of the woman is Christ. Christ was sacrificed for sin. Not for the Jews, he laid his life down to deal with sin.36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away , and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying , Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.38 The field is the world ; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.The tares are a spiritual seed, not a carnal. Otherwise one whole race would be condemned, and no one else. Murray's interpretation of this parable is dead wrong. Here is mine in detail: http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/40_Matthew/40_Matthew_Chapter_13_Complete.mp3You threw a bunch of scriptures at me with almost no comment. I have commented on these verses a multitude of times. I have run into dozens of people such as yourself. The way you just throw these verses out there like that, makes me feel like you really don't care. Believe me, the people who read my website, know that I care. I have spent hundreds of hours dealing with this subject. And with all that work already out there on the internet, I can just rest on that. I don't really have to do a thing. But I do it anyway. And you come along and just toss some scriptures out there. I get the feeling you really couldn't care less. I find very little zeal in Chapel students these days. I suppose that is good.http://oraclesofgod.org/emails/_kenites.htm just scroll to the bottom of that page and you will see how many people from the Chapel have tried to make their case regarding this subject and how badly it went for them.3 But I fear , lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in ChristBeguiled has no reference to sex. Pastor Murray proves himself a poor scholar of Greek on that one. I absolutely proved that on this page: http://oraclesofgod.org/shepherds_chapel/exapatao.htm
Are you going to follow that link? Many others have already followed it. But none have been able to show any defect in my work.11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.You are not taking the context of 1 John 3:11 into account. This is a critical error.The point John was trying to make was about sin. Not about carnal lineage. Sinners are "of" the devil because of what they do, not because of their genetic origin.1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil;
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go , and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:I don't see the relevance. That is why you should comment and not just spam verses.44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it
This is the place where Pastor Murray pointedly (and misleadingly) asks, "Who was the first murderer?" He wants you to say "Cain!" But that is missing the POINT. That is extremely misleading. The point Jesus was making was that SATAN was a murderer. There is no reference to Cain here. The Devil was a murderer form the beginning.You are not taking the context of that verse properly into account. That is a critical error.
John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.In which way were they "Abraham's seed?" Spiritually, or carnally? I was listening to Pastor Murray a few months ago, and he actually says they were "spiritually the seed of Abraham through Christ" Which is astonishing. I don't even expect you to believe he said that, because I can hardly believe it myself. But it is true. I guess he has to do that. Because you can't have it both ways. They are either the literal seed of Abraham and the Spiritual seed of satan, or the literal seed of Satan and the spiritual seed of Abraham. I just have trouble believing he would even willingly say that they were the spiritual seed of Abraham. I would expect him to merely dodge that.Regardless of what he says, we have to deal with what Jesus said. He said they were Abraham's seed, and he meant that literally. But they sought to kill Christ because they were Satan's seed spiritually. Here is the proof:John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Contextually, Christ acknowledges their carnal descent from Abraham in verse 37. And as we follow the dialog we see he then makes some remarks which they UNDERSTAND as questioning their SPIRITUAL origin, and that is correct. They then claim in verse 41 that God is their father, and, of course, they mean this SPIRITUALLY, not literally. So when Christ retorts in v 44 "ye are of your father the devil." he is saying that in response to their assertion that they were the spiritual children of God, so, contextually, this is spiritual.Jesus acknowledged they were carnally the children of Abraham, but asserted that they were spiritaully the children of the devil, this is consistent with the rest of the teachings in the new testament regarding the subject of Satan's seed. Just read the passage with that in mind and it is obvious.You call someone else a false teacher because you're not receiving the truth, or mabey your eyes ate close to the truth, I don't know.I call Arnold Murray a false teacher because he teaches things that are DEMONSTABLY false. I can demonstrate it, and have http://oraclesofgod.org/shepherds_chapel/exapatao.htm noone has challenged the scholarship found on that page. If you choose to close your eyes to those demonstrable facts. That is something I can only pray about.And those things you said about the mentally handicapped really shows how soddish you really are.andSorry if I offend you ,when you make negative comments they will come back at you, although your comments might not seen negative to you.
Regarding being called stupid and all that, it really is not a question of offence, I consider myself "stimulated" not offended (I've heard much worse). It is an observation I have made, it is one of the problems I have with Pastor Murray's teachings. He tends to view anyone who disagrees with him as being "just a little bit stupid." And this attitude rubs off on the people who listen to him. I get "you are stupid" emails from chapel defenders often enough for me to notice. I see the pattern. Others see the pattern. This is how people outside the Shepherd's Chapel see you people. You guys are nasty. But you don't offend me in the least. Chapel students are always fishing for offense, but seriously, I'm not offended. Why would you offend me? I'm the one who has offended you, that is why you wrote me in the first place.Sottish? Wilst thou baffle me with ye Olde Aenglish?! ...I used to study with Pastor Murray, so I know what sottish means (drunken). Anyway, I feel like you didn't see what I was getting at with my point about the mentally handicapped. Let's try it this way...Would you call a blind man stupid for not being able to read normal books? Of course not. So why would you call me stupid for not being able to see what Arnold Murray imagines he sees in the scriptures? If the reason I can't see it, scripturally, is blindness, not stupidity. Where do "eyes to see" come from? And why do I (who have not eyes to see), have to tell this to you (who supposedly does have eyes to see)? And what do you have against stupid people? It is not their fault they are not intelligent. Everyoine feels bad for the retarded, but the mildly stupid never get any breaks. But they are as helpless about their condition as a down's syndrome case. Get it?Arnold Murray is darkness, get as far from him as you can.Feel free to write any time.I am at your service,Sincerely,Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 2:57 PMSubject: RE:The verses I selected speak for themselves, obviously you believe differently and that's fine, it doesn't make since to go back and forth in disagreement.
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 6:01 PMSubject: Re:If the verses speak for themselves, we would not require Arnold Murray to change their meaning according to his perverse imaginations. All I do is attempt to strip away the false teachings that Arnold Murray has taught you to read into those verses. In other words, You have allowed Arnold Murray to substitute a false meaning for the true meaning of those verses. And so the verses are no longer speaking to you, Arnold Murray is speaking. The verses simply don't say what you think. That is a clear delusion. You are another example of the complete inability of Shepherd's Chapel students to answer a serious challenge. That's fine with me, the outcome is never in doubt.
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 8:41 PMSubject: RE:Let me rephrase, the scriptures speak for them selves if you UNDERSTAND them.
In this Last e-mail the only thing I'm hearing is Arnold Murray over and over again along with your negative comments, I have a few for you that I will get to later.
Lets talk about reading things into verses.....
At the end of the parable of the tares , it CLEARLY states that they are the CHILDREN of the wicked one. (which explains why God told the serpent he would enmity between HIS or thy SEED and HER or Eve's SEED)
Also in 1st John when referring to Cain, it says that Cain is of the wicked one, But you say that's spiritual, YOUR WORDS.
EXAMPLE #2
You take the verses in Genesis (where Eve bares Cain ) YOU stick Cain in Adams genealogy.
So according to YOU Adams genealogy recorded later in Genesis is totally incorrect. (because we both know that Cain is not in there)
You know what, the more I listen to YOU , I'm starting to think you wrote the bible, mabey you feel the same way.
Moving along.
Speaking of challenges , my challenge to you is be responsible for what you try to teach, after all, how can you teach something that obviously you don't know.
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 11:02 PMSubject: Re:Not finished? Good.As we go forward... And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, (no one ever offers an explanation, never forget that one verse, and know, in yourself, that you cannot change it, and you ought to be embarrassed for continuing to pretend it does not exist. Cause and effect, and so simple, a child could understand, you want to get into chapter 5 but you got lost in chapter 4, read on and I will give it to you straight)Let me rephrase, the scriptures speak for them selves if you UNDERSTAND them.
Let me rephrase that. The scriptures "speak for themselves" when you treat them like a puppet, and bend them to your will. That is what you should say because that is what the serpent seed requires us to do, I should know, I used to teach it.In this Last e-mail the only thing I'm hearing is Arnold Murray over and over again along with your negative comments,This is your original email to me"You mean to tell me that you studied with the chapel since 93 and your still stupid, unbelievable."Arnold Murray is the subject we opened on. I'm the one who actually turned this into a conversation about something meaningful. This discussion has a lot to do with Arnold Murray, since he is the one who brought us together, and his teachings are the ones that I object to. You may not like being associated with him, but that is why we are talking.I have a few for you that I will get to later.You opened by calling me stupid, so I wouldn't expect anything else.Lets talk about reading things into verses.....
At the end of the parable of the tares , it CLEARLY states that they are the CHILDREN of the wicked one.You read INTO that verse the idea that carnal children are meant, but that is not how that passage naturally reads. The children of the devil must be spiritual, because the children of God are spiritual. The good seed are the children of the kingdom; A kingdom does not have sexual intercourse with anyone, so the children of the kingdom which Christ preached must be spiritual children.12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.One becomes a child of the kingdom by spiritual means. One becomes a child of the devil by spiritual means as well. You cannot be born into it carnally. In that case, this parable would mean that anyone who is carnally descended from Cain is going to be burned, and everyone else is going to be saved. Not even Arnold Murray believes that, and that is hwy he contradicts Christ and says that Tares can change magically into wheat. He does not understand that parable, I assure you.40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;The children of the devil are "them which do iniquity" All the tares are burned, every single one. The idea that this is talking about some lost race of Kenites is totally contrary to the simple meaning of what Jesus said. You are reading all that into his words by perverting the clearly intended meaning of "children" in this context.The bible makes it very clear what differentiates the Children of God from the children of the devil.1 John 3: 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.The children of the devil are them which do iniquity. They are not a fantasy race of Devil-men spawned by Satan at the beginning of the world. That is not something the bible teaches, that is something people like Arnold Murray teach us to read into the bible. It is the quinessential "Jewish fable" that you pought not give heed to. Total garbage. It is a titillating tale meant to scratch your ears.(which explains why God told the serpent he would enmity between HIS or thy SEED and HER or Eve's SEED)
I explained this. you are not dealing with the issue. That does not explain anything as you say. Both Cain and Abel are the children of Eve. If we are talking about a carnal seed in Genesis 3:15 then both Cain and Abel are the woman's seed. The dispute is over Cain's father, not his mother. So the whole interpretation of Genesis 3:15 based on Murray's teachings is flawed. It is not between Adam's seed and Satan's seed. But that is what it would need to be for the serpent seed doctrine to make sense. Adam's SPERM and Satan's SPERM. Both boys came from the woman.Also in 1st John when referring to Cain, it says that Cain is of the wicked one, But you say that's spiritual, YOUR WORDS.
Whether I say it is spirtual or carnal, both would be my interpretation. We have to determine the correct interpretation based on the clear context of 1 John 3. We can't just randomly assign spirtual and carnal designations base on a whim. There has to be a sound reason for our interpretation.1 John 3 also says that we are the children of God, and that we have God's SEED in us.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.I have the seed of God in me. Should I take that literally, or spiritually? Are you going to answer that question? You have to take things in context, you can't just say things are carnal when you want them to be, and then say they are spiritual when it suits you , and all in the same context. You have to be consistent, at the very least contextually consistent. The serpent seed doctrine is ridiculous and inconsistent in 1 John 3, Matthew 13 and everywhere you find it. They ignore the context and make Satan's seed literal, even though the passages obviously require a spiritual interpretation.EXAMPLE #2
You take the verses in Genesis (where Eve bares Cain ) YOU stick Cain in Adams genealogy.What?!?! No, I do not. The bible put's ADAM in CAIN's genealogy. This is absolutely a fact. Genesis 4 is Cain's genealogy, and Adam is in it and you CANNOT take him out of it1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.verses 2-16 are parenthetical, but Adam is clearly, and plainly in the line of Cain which is the subject of Genesis 4. The genealogy in chapter 5 has nothing to do with Cain, because Cain was not the forefather of NOAH. The bible has many examples of times firstborn sons were excluded from a lineage because of some sin. For example Reuben was firstborn, but Christ descended through Judah. Cain was excluded from the inheritance seedline because of his sin, but the bible clearly says that ADAM was the father of Cain. Cain has a genealogy in Genesis, and Adam is his father.1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare CainCould not be clearer. I really would like to see you tell me what you think that verse means. Every single Serpent seed believer dodges that verse. You have to. There is nothing else you can do. I suppose you could tell me it is a lie....You can trot out all scriptures you like. But I have yet to hear you, or any chapel student explain to me what that verse means.
So according to YOU Adams genealogy recorded later in Genesis is totally incorrect. (because we both know that Cain is not in there)
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare CainWhat you fail to realize is that ADAM appears in both Seth's and Cain's genealogies. Such a simple error. Murray pulled the wool over our eyes. Adam is the father of Cain, the bible tells me so. But Murray makes a big deal of the fact that Cain is not in Seth's Genealogy. Did you honestly think that Seth was the ONLY son Adam had?4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:Those sons are not listed either, it is not 'cause they were "of the devil" It's 'cause they were not the inheritance seed line/
You know what, the more I listen to YOU , I'm starting to think you wrote the bible, mabey you feel the same way.I guess that is supposed to be some sort of cutting remark. You are entitled to your opinion.
Moving along. Speaking of challenges , my challenge to you is be responsible for what you try to teach, after all, how can you teach something that obviously you don't know.Responsible? I'm more responsible than 99% of teachers. Look at all the care I've taken to respond to you. No one ever got a detailed and specific response like mine from Murray. Tough questions don't get on the air.I know all about the serpent seed. It is a lie I once believed.If you mean that I don't know the bible, I'll let my readers be the judge of that.Sincerely,Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Monday, December 29, 2014 12:57 AMSubject: RE:I have a question for you. Did God say to the serpent "because you have done this....................and I will put enmity between THY SEED and HER SEED?
I continually find that people presume that I
have never heard of Genesis 3:15. In my teaching
"The Seed of the Serpent" I
cover all these scriptures.
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:41 AMSubject: Re:
Apparently, you did not read what I wrote. I'll cut and paste it since you seem to be having some sort of issue here"(which explains why God told the serpent he would enmity between HIS or thy SEED and HER or Eve's SEED)
"I explained this. you are not dealing with the issue. That does not explain anything as you say. Both Cain and Abel are the children of Eve. If we are talking about a carnal seed in Genesis 3:15 then both Cain and Abel are the woman's seed. The dispute is over Cain's father, not his mother. So the whole interpretation of Genesis 3:15 based on Murray's teachings is flawed. It is not between Adam's seed and Satan's seed. But that is what it would need to be for the serpent seed doctrine to make sense. Adam's SPERM and Satan's SPERM. Both boys came from the woman,"So both boys are her carnal seed. That is why Genesis 3:15 cannot be about Cain and Abel, because both boys are the carnal seed of the woman. There is no "his seed her seed" when it comes to Cain and Abel, both boys were her sons.Thy seed and Her seed does not refer to Cain and Abel. Anyone who says so is a liar.It sure does say "thy seed and her seed" but it simply cannot mean what you are saying. That doesn't make sense.
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:48 AMSubject: Re:In addition to what I just said, I want to add that Cain, Abel, Seth, and, in fact, all men are HER SEED in the carnal sense,Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.Apparently, you did not read what I wrote. I'll cut and paste it since you seem to be having some sort of issue here"(which explains why God told the serpent he would enmity between HIS or thy SEED and HER or Eve's SEED)
"I explained this. you are not dealing with the issue. That does not explain anything as you say. Both Cain and Abel are the children of Eve. If we are talking about a carnal seed in Genesis 3:15 then both Cain and Abel are the woman's seed. The dispute is over Cain's father, not his mother. So the whole interpretation of Genesis 3:15 based on Murray's teachings is flawed. It is not between Adam's seed and Satan's seed. But that is what it would need to be for the serpent seed doctrine to make sense. Adam's SPERM and Satan's SPERM. Both boys came from the woman,"So both boys are her carnal seed. That is why Genesis 3:15 cannot be about Cain and Abel (or Seth either), because both boys are the carnal seed of the woman. There is no "his seed her seed" when it comes to Cain and Abel, both boys were her sons.Thy seed and Her seed does not refer to Cain and Abel. Anyone who says so is a liar.It sure does say "thy seed and her seed" but it simply cannot mean what you are saying. That doesn't make sense.
Emailer's Fifth Reply:
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:54 AMSubject: RE:
FORGET HER LETS DEAL WITH "THY"
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:53 PMSubject: Re:Hello again,I don't know how you can say we ought to just ignore the one and deal with the other, they go together. They are part of an overall prophetic picture. You have to understand, you guys are the ones making the fantastic claims here about lost races of Devil-men. People don't pick up Genesis and say, "Oh, 'Thy seed,' that must be the Kenites." That does not happen. I'm dealing with "thy seed" by reminding you that both Cain and Abel are the carnal seed of the woman. It's a point the gets conveniently overlooked by certain people. But is very pertinent. If we strip the passage down to "thy seed" How is that letting the scripture speak?Thy seed. The Seed of the Serpent. In Genesis 3:15 it is prophetic. And generally speaking it is spiritual, never carnal. Yeah, I'm saying that, but I have legitimate reasons to believe that. Genesis 3:15 is not genealogical, if you want to say that the Devil's seed is carnal, you have to prove that in the bible, not just by asserting it. Whatever way we interpret "thy seed" we have to have sound reasons for what we do. We need to have justifications for our interpretations. I have justifications for mine, but where are yours? As far as I can see, your justification for interpreting "thy seed" carnally is "cause I think so." That is not very impressive.The seed of the Serpent in Genesis 3:15 is a prophetic seed. And the seed of the woman is a prophetic seed also in that passage. My justification is Revelation 12 where the woman and the serpent appear again in a clearly prophetic context. I'm not going to quote the whole thing here, and I already gave you a link.17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.The seed of the prophetic woman are the children of God. God created man and woman that they might inherit life, but the seed of sin entered in and slew men. The dragon, the serpent, makes war against the remnant of the woman's seed which is Christ.I got a bet for you, I bet you cannot let the following verses speak for themselves.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.So the seed of the serpent is prophetic in Genesis 3:15 and generally a spiritual seed as plainly observed in many places in the New Testament. Really, to make it racial/carnal is to totally miss out on what the bible is all about. 'You keep running from it. But I've mentioned over and over that the bible specifically says that Adam was the one who cased Cain to be conceived within Eve. You want to focus on "thy seed" two words in a cryptic prophetic verse. Whereas Genesis 4:1 is GENEALOGICAL in its nature, CARNAL, CAIN, carnally, genealogically, descended from ADAM. That is what the bible says.1 And Adam knew Eve his wife (cause); and she conceived, and bare Cain (effect),Cause and effect. You want to talk about letting the bible speak for itself? Read that ten times aloud to yourself. When you start reading stuff into plain, no-nonsense, passages like that... that is when you stop being a bible student. If you cannot address this verse then I cannot take you seriously anymore. I have answered all your points and you have just given me lazy comebacks which do not address my points. I point that out because that is what is going to matter when people read this, and I want you to take your best shot at this.
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:28 PMSubject: RE:
I didn't tell you to forget about Eve, but it seems like your doing everything to avoid the subject "thy(serpents)seed.
I don't care what people pick up the bible and think,
You couldn't even answer. A simple question.
Believe what you want , add all the words you want to the word. Who cares!
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:49 PMSubject: RE:It's a yes or no answer so what's your answer?
My Seventh Response:
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:52 PMSubject: Re:Nonsense. I answered every question. I didn't avoid talking about "thy seed." 90% of my last email was about the serpent seed. You are basically ignoring my answers and attempting to score a rhetorical victory without having done any work to prove your point. Do you think that any battle can be won by such a slothful servant? You probably didn't read past the first paragraph, because the whole letter after the first paragraph was about "thy seed" and justifying how it is interpreted. You can throw up all the FAKE talk about me not answering questions, but it will be very clear to those who read this who is avoiding who. I answered all your questions, you are just too lazy to read the answers. And you cannot answer my questions. Aren't you supposed to be the superior one? Am I not the stupid one?
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 6:08 PMSubject: Re:You mean this question?Did God say to the serpent "because you have done this....................and I will put enmity between THY SEED and HER SEED?You seriously need me to answer that? Specifically? I thought that was a rhetorical question. But actually, no, God did not say that. God does not talk in DOTS. You are taking away from his words! Actually, I'm just kidding with you a little.Here is what God said, translated into English, if you want to be accurate.14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Is that a Good enough "yes" for you? Yes. Now, how about what that means? If you are going to say it is a carnal seed, that is as much "adding to the word" as saying it is a spiritual seed, and more so, because I already backed up my assertion with additional scripture proving that this is prophetic and not genealogical. You have to justify your interpretation.
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:25 PMSubject: RE:
Just as I suspected, don't act like you don't know what the dots imply , they connect the two verses, my question lies in the 2nd of the two, the first verse show where God says " because thou has done this" transferring the thought from one verse to the next! now for the fourth or fifth time will you answer the question? I know why you won't, false teachers run from the truth, beat around the bush, discuss everything but the question at hand, you will never answer the question because you will have to say yes and open the door to the truth. But you dont have to say anything 'cause like I told you the scriptures speak for the themselves to those who understand them, YOU said yourself that it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO YOU, it never makes sense to a false teacher, and you really do seem to be soddish because you pretend that you don't know what "dots" imply just to avoid saying yes to a question that CLEARLY states that "GOD put enmity between the serpents seed and Eves.
So continue to be a pawn for Satan, spearheading garbage all over the web,
I will no longer entertain your trash, your emails will go into the false teacher spam folder!
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:37 PMSubject: Re:I specifically answered your question "yes." Your monolog is ridiculous. You apparently don't read. Remember, I brought this subject up, you are the one who insists on not talking about it.This is how it goes (and this is how you will look on my website):I say something about the subjectYou reply with a question of your ownI reply to that question and mention you ignored my first point and further pointsYou insist I never replied to your questionI reply to the question again with a solid "yes" answer and repeat my pointsYou continue to insist that I never replied to your questionWell, you can toss my emails in the trash, but yours will eventually find their way onto my website. You will make a fine example of a typical Shepherd's Chapel student.
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Friday, January 02, 2015 2:44 AMSubject: RE:Ok , I didn't read you're entire response , I stopped when you said" do you expect me to answer that question" but anyway Mr. Paul , you're answer was yes, now were getting somewhere.
Do you also agree that the Hebrew definition for the word "seed"( as used in the verse where God said he would put enmity between thy seed and her seed)
Is offspring among other synonyms?
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #255Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 1:53 PMSubject: Re:Yes, and just so you know, it also means offspring in English, Greek, and almost every other language known to man. This is not some "secret" Hebrew meaning. But since Cain was Adam's son, (And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,) the offspring referred to cannot be Cain.
Emailer's Eighth Reply:
----- Original Message -----From: Email #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Friday, January 02, 2015 4:45 PMSubject: RE:
There you go again Paul, lets stick to what's written, between the two seeds (Cain and able) which of the two was God referring to when he told the Serpent that he would put enmity between his seed and the woman seed?
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Email #255Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 10:10 PMSubject: Re:Sticking to what it written? You are the one reading into Genesis 3:15 things that are not written there. Since the subject in Chapter 3 is the seed of the woman vs the seed of the serpent, you have no justification for inserting Cain and Abel into the question. That is not sticking to what is written. Cain and Abel are not mentioned until Chapter 4, and that is where it clearly says, in language even a child could understand, who Cain's dad was, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain," You are guilty of reading your interpretation into the text and ignoring the context. That is what you do. It isn't scholarship, it's trash.
Emailer's Ninth Reply:
----- Original Message -----From: Email #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Friday, January 02, 2015 11:04 PMSubject: RE:
Hey dude , anyone with common sense knows that the two seeds ,( the only two mentioned) were Cain and Able. They were the subject, the only two seeds mentioned in the whole chapter!
It is your God given right to be stupid dude.
It your mind , believe what you want.
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Email #255Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 2:35 PMSubject: Re:
It is ironic for you to call me stupid when you just said that. Cain and Abel are not part of chapter 3. Cain and Abel are not mentioned at all in Chapter 3. Learn to read before you write me again. You bore me.
Emailer's Tenth Reply:
----- Original Message -----From: Email #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 2:41 PMSubject: RE:
Ok dude cp 4, until Cains genealogy starts. Happy now.
----- Original Message -----From: Email #255To: Paul StringiniSent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 2:43 PMSubject: RE:Being stupid and making a mistake are different.
Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page